PP here, not the one who has replied to this particular post though. I think, though, that I am the "you" that this poster is referencing at the beginning. I'm going to take a stab at deciphering and responding to this. We'll see how it goes.

Anonymous wrote:
You keep referencing standards.

The title of this thread is "Why are people upset about Common Core?" Common Core is the name of a specific set of educational standards. Therefore it is very very challenging to discuss Common Core without referencing standards. Doing so would be like replying coherently to a post titled "Why did you choose a Golden Retriever?" without mentioning dogs.

What I am referring to is the actual college board tests and their rewrite to comply with CC.

That seems like a different question, one that might be better answered in a thread titled "What do you think of the new SAT?" It's a very valid question, and worthy of discussion, but it isn't the topic of this particular thread.

Only by seeing the questions on these tests can your questions be answered because the testing is directly correlated to implementation of the standards. Yet teachers are saying that they have no access to CC test questions.

The College Board has only recently (8 days ago, to be precise) released sample questions for the new SAT, and only a few questions were released. How well the questions on the new SAT will be designed and whether they are well aligned with Common Core remains to be seen. However, you seem to be confusing 3 separate sets of questions:

1) Are the Common Core standards good standards? Do they represent what we want our children to learn? Will students educated under these standards be well prepared for college and career? Should states adopt them? These questions can be answered without seeing the questions on the new SAT

2) Given that the majority of states are adopting the Common Core standards in their public schools, does it make sense to redesign the SAT and ACT to align more closely with the new standards? Who would such a design benefit? Who would it hurt? How would it impact states, schools, and students who are not currently using Common Core? These questions can also be answered without seeing the questions on the new SAT

3) Given that the College Board has decided to redesign the SAT and realign it with the Common Core, how well will they accomplish the task? Will the questions be well written? Will they align with what is taught in the classrooms around the nation? Will they test the most important skills for students to have as they enter college? Will they do a better or worse job than the questions on the old SAT of predicting students' success in college? These are the questions that can't be answered until we have more information about the redesign of the SAT. They are very valid questions.

All 3 of these are great avenues for discussion, but they're 3 distinct conversations. Jumping between them, makes this conversation very confusing, which may be why the pro-Common Core people here are frequently saying "But I thought we were talking about Standards?"

They are also reporting that there are hard equipment failures, as well as software issues.

There have not been any publicized hard equipment failures or software issues with the new SAT, because it is not yet at that stage of testing. There have been well publicized reports of hardware and software issues with PARCC, but PARCC is not an "actual college board test" and is not being "rewritten to comply with CC". I agree that the reports of hardware and software problems with PARCC are concerning, but hardware problems are not uncommon when new technology is tested. I am sure that many people will be watching the roll out of PARCC closely to see how these issues are addressed.

Having said that, I was not under the impression that you were discussing PARCC. I thought you had clarified that we were discussing the new SAT.

Take Obamacare. There was a set of standards developed for the creation of the website. Yet the website crashed because the implementation of those standards were poor.

You seem to be confusing educational standards, and technological standards. Common Core is the set of educational standards. It is, in essence, a list of things that students at each grade should be able to do at the end of the year. One way to think of them are as learning outcomes. There is no exact correlation to educational standards for Obamacare, but Obamacare also has outcomes that were set early on. Outcomes such as increasing the number of Americans who had access to health care, particularly Americans in certain categories such as young adults and those with preexisting chronic health conditions.

In addition to these kind of standards or outcomes associated with Common Core and Obamacare, there are/were new pieces of technology created to support the implementation of both Common Core and Obamacare. In the case of Common Core the most obvious of these are the new computerized assessment tools such as PARCC, Smarter Balanced Assessment, and the new SAT. In the case of Obamacare, the most obvious of these is the website designed to help enroll new members into health insurance programs. Like most pieces of technology both of these pieces of software undoubtedly had "standards" that were written to guide the individuals writing the code, debugging the programs, etc . . . These standards are very different from the Common Core standards.

The Obamacare website crashed, not because the original outcomes in the law were bad outcomes (again, unless you believe the crash was divine intervention). They crashed either because the technological standards were poor, or because the program did not meet those standards. For those of us who believe in the proposed outcomes of Obamacare, that is those of us who value the goal of expanding access to health insurance in this country, the solution to the crashed website is to fix the website, not to give up on expanding access to health insurance.

Similarly, if the computers used to implement the new SAT crash, it won't be because it was a bad idea to teach 2nd graders multiple ways to represent two digit addition, or because it was a bad idea to expect high school students to be able to write essays that support main ideas with information gleaned from a non-fiction text. It will be because of a problem somewhere in the process of designing or rolling out the new SAT.

If you cannot understand this, I am seriously concerned about teaching programs across the country.

I'll let you judge whether or not I understood your point. I have done the best I can to reply to each portion.

Do they not require business courses?

No, most teaching credentialing programs, other than those that prepare teachers who teach economics or business, do not require business courses, just as most MBA programs do not require courses on Child Development. I am unclear as to how a business course would help understand this particular issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with showing HOW one gets the answer in math is that there are different approaches to doing this--but testing relies on ONE approach.

Or, testing could rely on many approaches. If you understand the concept of equivalent fractions, you will be able to demonstrate that comprehension in multiple ways.

Agreed- I'm a bit confused here. If CC teaches multiple strategies, why would testing require you to only use one approach? Is this a fact or just bring assumed? Because I don't see any reason why a student couldn't show a work in multiple ways as long as they came to the correct answer.

Anonymous wrote:The problem with showing HOW one gets the answer in math is that there are different approaches to doing this--but testing relies on ONE approach.

Or, testing could rely on many approaches. If you understand the concept of equivalent fractions, you will be able to demonstrate that comprehension in multiple ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Well, I for one am having a hard time figuring out what on earth you're talking about.

Do you watch/read the news?

Yes. But I don't understand your rambling post. Common Core, college entrance exams, software, hardware, Obamacare and standards all in two incomprehensible paragraphs.

Well, I for one am having a hard time figuring out what on earth you're talking about.

Do you watch/read the news?

Anonymous wrote:

You keep referencing standards. What I am referring to is the actual college board tests and their rewrite to comply with CC. Only by seeing the questions on these tests can your questions be answered because the testing is directly correlated to implementation of the standards. Yet teachers are saying that they have no access to CC test questions. They are also reporting that there are hard equipment failures, as well as software issues.

Take Obamacare. There was a set of standards developed for the creation of the website. Yet the website crashed because the implementation of those standards were poor. If you cannot understand this, I am seriously concerned about teaching programs across the country. Do they not require business courses?

Well, I for one am having a hard time figuring out what on earth you're talking about.

However, I can't really connect that to your husband in any way. It seems that he either did have early experiences exploring with math, whether on his own or with an adult who enjoyed playing math games with him, or a talented teacher, and he doesn't remember them because he was young when they happened, or he didn't have those experiences and figured out creative strategies on his own. Either way that's great, but I'm not sure I understand how it relates to the idea that children today shouldn't have opportunities to explore a variety of strategies.

If the teacher has to teach the kids multiple strategies and expect mastery on multiple strategies--when is there time? I taught school, time is a commodity that is needed to teach lots of different things. This is unrealistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if you are missing or evading my point. Private schools now are exempt from SOLs and I'm assuming will be exempt from the CC tests. But since the college boards are being re-written to correspond with the CC standards (and thus the common core curriculums), without knowledge of these curriculums, private school students will fare poorly.

If private school students fare poorly on the SATs and ACTs when they are rewritten to align with Common Core standards, then that means that the private school education wasn't very good.

That's not so. There is what kids know and how they are tested to show what they know. The problem will be the latter, not the former.

Again, this a classic demonstration regarding the lack of knowledge between standards and implementation of standards.

Can you link to a standard at the high school level, that asks kids to show their work in a way that wasn't true in previous sets of standards?

Common Core puts a lot of emphasis in the early grades on showing work
, using strategies, and visually modeling, for basic skills like addition, division, place value and fractions. But the only tests that private school school students are being asked to take are the ACT or SAT which don't address those skills. Looking at the HS standards, what skills do you see in HS Common Core, that you feel are unfair to ask of private school students?

You keep referencing standards. What I am referring to is the actual college board tests and their rewrite to comply with CC. Only by seeing the questions on these tests can your questions be answered because the testing is directly correlated to implementation of the standards. Yet teachers are saying that they have no access to CC test questions. They are also reporting that there are hard equipment failures, as well as software issues.

Take Obamacare. There was a set of standards developed for the creation of the website. Yet the website crashed because the implementation of those standards were poor. If you cannot understand this, I am seriously concerned about teaching programs across the country. Do they not require business courses?

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you think this? Common Core references multiple strategies over and over again in early grades. Part of why their "fewer topics, more depth" thing gathers complaint is that students spend time learning to come at a problem in multiple ways and represent a problem in multiple ways, and some people feel that students should learn the one right way (defined as however a skill was taught in the 1950's) and move on.

And why do you think CC way is better? Kids learn to think in different ways. My spouse uses very creative math thinking (an engineer). It's his own system. No one taught it to him.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Can you explain it a little more? It's hard to rebut an argument that I don't understand.

I can tell you why I think the CC way is better, based on my experience in the classroom. I think that children learn to think in different ways, and that showing them something from multiple angles can help them understand it better and apply it more creatively. I agree that in previous generations small numbers of kids explored on their own and learned to think creatively about mathematics, but I also think we can do better than small numbers if we give kids more rich and varied math experiences.

However, I can't really connect that to your husband in any way. It seems that he either did have early experiences exploring with math, whether on his own or with an adult who enjoyed playing math games with him, or a talented teacher, and he doesn't remember them because he was young when they happened, or he didn't have those experiences and figured out creative strategies on his own. Either way that's great, but I'm not sure I understand how it relates to the idea that children today shouldn't have opportunities to explore a variety of strategies.

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you think this? Common Core references multiple strategies over and over again in early grades. Part of why their "fewer topics, more depth" thing gathers complaint is that students spend time learning to come at a problem in multiple ways and represent a problem in multiple ways, and some people feel that students should learn the one right way (defined as however a skill was taught in the 1950's) and move on.

And why do you think CC way is better? Kids learn to think in different ways. My spouse uses very creative math thinking (an engineer). It's his own system. No one taught it to him.

So what is your complaint exactly? You'd prefer different strategies aren't taught? Some like your husband may be able to figure out all the approaches by themselves, but I'm sure some students would benefit from being taught different approaches in the classroom.

Why do you think this? Common Core references multiple strategies over and over again in early grades. Part of why their "fewer topics, more depth" thing gathers complaint is that students spend time learning to come at a problem in multiple ways and represent a problem in multiple ways, and some people feel that students should learn the one right way (defined as however a skill was taught in the 1950's) and move on.

And why do you think CC way is better? Kids learn to think in different ways. My spouse uses very creative math thinking (an engineer). It's his own system. No one taught it to him.

Anonymous wrote:The problem with showing HOW one gets the answer in math is that there are different approaches to doing this--but testing relies on ONE approach.

Why do you think this? Common Core references multiple strategies over and over again in early grades. Part of why their "fewer topics, more depth" thing gathers complaint is that students spend time learning to come at a problem in multiple ways and represent a problem in multiple ways, and some people feel that students should learn the one right way (defined as however a skill was taught in the 1950's) and move on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if you are missing or evading my point. Private schools now are exempt from SOLs and I'm assuming will be exempt from the CC tests. But since the college boards are being re-written to correspond with the CC standards (and thus the common core curriculums), without knowledge of these curriculums, private school students will fare poorly.

If private school students fare poorly on the SATs and ACTs when they are rewritten to align with Common Core standards, then that means that the private school education wasn't very good.

That's not so. There is what kids know and how they are tested to show what they know. The problem will be the latter, not the former.

Again, this a classic demonstration regarding the lack of knowledge between standards and implementation of standards.

Can you link to a standard at the high school level, that asks kids to show their work in a way that wasn't true in previous sets of standards?

Common Core puts a lot of emphasis in the early grades on showing work
, using strategies, and visually modeling, for basic skills like addition, division, place value and fractions. But the only tests that private school school students are being asked to take are the ACT or SAT which don't address those skills. Looking at the HS standards, what skills do you see in HS Common Core, that you feel are unfair to ask of private school students?

The problem with showing HOW one gets the answer in math is that there are different approaches to doing this--but testing relies on ONE approach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This must be at only some MCPS schools. Other MCPS schools I hear about acceleration all the time.

MCPS still has acceleration, just not to the extreme degree they had it int he past where significant numbers of 3rd graders were taking 5th grade math.

You'd think they were learning how to count to 100 in 2nd grade considering how many complaints there were in math. 1 grade ahead outside of a magnet school seems like plenty of differentiation. Don't know what MCPS parents are complaining about.